Sony A7rII vs. Canon 5DS

[SundaySundaySunday]

I've been torturing myself for several months after deciding to rebuild my camera bag. For what it's worth, my standards were set ridiculously high years ago by the Leica M6 and their fabulously glass, thus the large sensor camera ideas. My fear, after watching a very nicely done webcast by B&H yesterday about the Canon 5DS and 5DSR cameras is they they're largely tripod cameras due to the large sensor.

I've seen the Sony cameras and am impressed by the build, size and reception they've received from serious camera people. Limited lenses, yes, but Zeiss seems to be rolling them out faster than I can pay for them so I'm not overly worried.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC.

If you wouldn't mind clicking the "My Profile" button on the top of this page and at least adding your first name and where you are from to your profile, that would be great. We tend to be a pretty informal group here and go on a first name basis.

First of all, you are not quite correct about the full frame cameras that you saw in the B&H video; the quality that comes from hand holding them is no better or worse than you got from your Leica. The sensor is more or less the same as the film size you were shooting. You could have gotten better shots by using a decent tripod with the Leica too.

You can take that from another long time Leica shooter that went to a high pixel count (Nikon D800) about 3 years ago.

The lenses on the Sony cameras may be Zeiss branded (just like some of the ones on Panasonic cameras are Leica branded), but they are definitely not "the real thing", as they are designed and built by Sony. If the arrangement is the same as the Leica / Panasonic one, where Leica specified test instruments that are used and Leica has (had?) a technician working at Panasonic. The lenses had to meet certain quality specs for the Leica branding to be used.

In fact Zeiss has not built any small format lenses in very a long time; any that you see are actually built by Cosina (Japan) for Zeiss (unlike the Sony lenses, these are actually Zeiss designs and are manufactured to Zeiss specifications), and so far as I know are primarily targeted at high end Canon and Nikon shooters.

Am I impressed with the Sony cameras; less so that I would like. Nikon has been using Sony sensors in their high end cameras for some time and they seem to be getting better image quality, colour depth and dynamic range out of cameras that use essentially the same sensor that Sony does; based on independent reviews.

[SundaySundaySunday]

Thanks for your thoughts and tips about the site. It's my understanding that, while the first A lenses were built by Sony to Zeiss specs, the soon to be released Batis and Loxia lenses are actually made by Zeiss. Not so?

Very nice site, I look forward to perusing.

Peter

[Manfred M]

So far as I no, never been so. Zeiss has not built small format lenses in decades.

As I said before, 100% of the small format (35mm) lenses are made by Cosina. They have gone to a contract manufacturer for lens production; but they are sold and marketed by Zeiss. They build the high end cinema lenses (Zeiss primes and zooms) in Germany.

[tao2]

The glass in the Loxia and Batis is Zeiss glass, German made. Both lenses are designed and engineered by Zeiss and built tae Zeiss specs. by Cosina in Japan; much the same as Minolta/Leica in the 80s and later - Leica/Panasonic. All Sony - Zeiss branded, A and E mount lenses are designed and engineered by Zeiss, built by Sony. Nikon has a slightly dissimilar method in that many of their lenses are built in Thailand, not Japan, overseen by Nikon engineers.

[Manfred M]

The glass in the Loxia and Batis is Zeiss glass, German made.

Actually there is (and isn't) anything called Zeiss glass. The Carl Zeiss Foundation, which owns the Carl Zeiss optical works also wholly owns the Schott Glass Works, who supply glass to Zeiss, Schneider-Kreuznach and other optical manufacturers (B+W filters, Heliopan, etc).

Minolta/Leica in the 80s and later

The only lenses that Minolta built for Leica were zoom lenses like my f/4 80-200mm / Vario-Elmar R. So far as I know, Leica never designed and produced any zoom lenses, and with the exception of the Leitz-Wetzlar branded Minolta lenses, they had companies including Ageniuex or Schneider-Kreutznach build zoom lenses with Leica mounts that were marketed under the manufacturer's brand by Leica. Similarly the Schneider PA-Curtagon was a perspective correcting lens that Leica marketed, again with Schneider-Kreutznach branding.

Another example of the Leica / Minolta cooperation is that Leica R3 was based on the Minolta XE body casting.

The Panasonic / Leica relationship is what I wrote in thread 2 - my knowledge here is based on some published information that Panasonic put out when they started rolling out their first four-thirds cameras and the question of the Leica / Panasonic relationship was specifically addressed by Panasonic management. The lenses were Panasonic design, but had to meet certain performance specs, which in the beginning meant no software correction of lens distortion and aberration. This requirement appears to have changed as both Leica built cameras (i.e. not the rebadged Panasonic ones) as well as Panasonic have incorporated this technology.

Just to complicate matters, the Leica brand (trademark) is owned by Leica Microsystems, and both Leica Geosystems and Leica Camera licence the trademark from them. All three are now separate companies with different ownerships.

Nikon has a slightly dissimilar method in that many of their lenses are built in Thailand, not Japan, overseen by Nikon engineers.

No, Nikon owns has several subsidiaries in both China and Thailand that make lenses and in the case of Thailand, they also assemble cameras and manufacture lens and camera components. The top of the line cameras and lenses are still made in Japan. Lower end cameras are definitely made in China. So these are Nikon managed and operated plants, not third-party subcontractors.

The only higher end Nikon camera that I am aware of that is not built by Nikon is the FM-10 35mm film camera which was designed and assembled by Cosina for Nikon and is based on the Cosina CT1 body.

[tao2]

Actually there is (and isn't) anything called Zeiss glass.

Hi Manfred,

ah suppose that ah credited our fellow members with too much intelligence in assuming they would understand what ah meant by "Zeiss glass".

The Leica R3 was indeed a Minolta derivation. Apart fae the metering and mirror box (Leica's own), most of the internals were interchangeable. The electronics and chassis technology was Minolta.

The R4-R7 again used Minolta technology (based on Minolta XD7/11)...can ye see the difference?




Leica didn't just re-badge zoom lenses. The 16mm fisheye was a re-badged Minolta (with a hefty trebling of the price-at the time-for that red dot) and also the 24mm f2.8.

[PhotoByTrace]

Like a few others on the forum have expressed, I have been watching the Sony A7 range with interest for the past year. It was exciting when it was announced, but seemed to fall short of what I wanted from my camera. But I've been watching along checking the updates and lenses every couple of months.

The newly announced A7rII has me more excited; the back-illuminated sensor sounds like it should be ideal for the long exposure landscapes I love to take (if my understanding of the technology is sound). The ISO range should be good for me for both astro-landscapes and indoor agility. The fast hybrid AF also sounds like it should work well for my dog-sport photos; though only testing it would really help me know. I'd always be concerned that since a field tends to be "littered" with obstacles that the AF may not stay tracking the motion. However, the real-estate that the AF points cover is a big jump up from the D610.

Overall, from my shooting desires, the camera itself looks like it may serve my specific purposes quite well. The large electronic view finder also sounds attractive.

However I still can't find the lenses to cover off on my favourite purposes (even before I ask the above question of IQ). AND there is a very hefty price tag attached to go slightly smaller and lesser weight. So I may just continue to watch this space for another year or two before making a decision.

And I certainly can't imagine I'm alone sitting on the wall, watching and waiting

[Storyteller]

However I still can't find the lenses to cover off on my favourite purposes (even before I ask the above question of IQ). AND there is a very hefty price tag attached to go slightly smaller and lesser weight. So I may just continue to watch this space for another year or two before making a decision.

And I certainly can't imagine I'm alone sitting on the wall, watching and waiting

To be fair the A7R2 is more aligned with the the D810 in features AND price but I certainly wish it was selling at the A7R price point. I'm curious what lens coverage you are trying to replicate in e-mount? I think the PDAF compatibility with third party lenses could be a killer feature for people looking to migrate from another system but it is still to early to tell how well that will really work.

[Manfred M]

Leica didn't just re-badge zoom lenses. The 16mm fisheye was a re-badged Minolta (with a hefty trebling of the price-at the time-for that red dot) and also the 24mm f2.8.

I also remember reading at the time, Leica was cherry picking the lenses and was rejecting up to 90% of the lenses that Minolta was sending them.

[Manfred M]

To be fair the A7R2 is more aligned with the the D810 in features AND price but I certainly wish it was selling at the A7R price point. I'm curious what lens coverage you are trying to replicate in e-mount? I think the PDAF compatibility with third party lenses could be a killer feature for people looking to migrate from another system but it is still to early to tell how well that will really work.

Welcome to CiC.

Would you mind completing at least the name and location parts of your profile by clicking on the "My Profile" button on the top of this page. We are a pretty informal group at CiC and go one a first name basis.

[chauncey]

Something that a new purchaser rarely considers is repair service...it is a rare camera that at some
time during it's life will not need to be repaired.

With regards to that customer satisfaction...Canon/Nikon rank at the top...Sony is near the bottom.

[Manfred M]

Something that a new purchaser rarely considers is repair service...it is a rare camera that at some
time during it's life will not need to be repaired.

With regards to that customer satisfaction...Canon/Nikon rank at the top...Sony is near the bottom.

Now that is a scarey thought as around here service from both Canon and Nikon is bordering on the abysmal and is apparently comparable with what both companies do in the USA. Even the pros I know with access to premium service are unimpressed.

My experience with Nikon and Canon was that turnaround was in the order of six weeks. The only group I had great service with was Panasonic's professional products group (video cameras) where I had the camera turned around and in my hands within a week.

[William W]

. . . deciding to rebuild my camera bag. . . my standards were set ridiculously high . . . Any thoughts.

What are you intending to shoot with the gear in your new camera bag?

What will be the typical shooting scenarios (situations) in which you will find yourself?

WW

[tao2]

I also remember reading at the time, Leica was cherry picking the lenses and was rejecting up to 90% of the lenses that Minolta was sending them.

Hi Manfred,

Ye may have read that...but did ye believe it? Two companies, in a mutually lucrative partnership (of which Leica was the major beneficiary) and one company rejects 90% of the other's goods but doesn't dissolve the partnership? It was too ludicrous then...and now. Many Leica fanboys simply couldn't accept that another company was not only making better, more advanced cameras and lenses but they were being sold, albeit at greatly inflated prices, as Leica's own.

The main problem was that Leica owners (like Apple Mac owners, later) having made a heavy financial investment in their gear didn't want tae be told that it wasn't as good, in their minds, as they thought. Heaven forfend that anyone found out that Minolta was the real brains behind the R3-R7 and a cluster of lenses forbye.

Ah don't think that Minolta (probably the most innovative camera company), who also built the Leica CL, CLE, AF-C1, C2-zoom and Mini, had any problems with producing camera lenses. Ye can see the results tae this day; all Minolta/Leica lenses are stamped "made in japan", good thing is , they're usually much cheaper on the used market, due tae brand snobbery.

As an aside, when Leica were doing their homework on Minolta before the partnership, they asked Beattie why there were no aftermarket screens from them, for Minolta cameras. Beattie said that they had examined the Minolta screens but couldn't improve on them...

[Manfred M]

Actually Boab, I do believe the story, but that is just as valid as you not believing it.

[Davey]

However I still can't find the lenses to cover off on my favourite purposes (even before I ask the above question of IQ). AND there is a very hefty price tag attached to go slightly smaller and lesser weight. So I may just continue to watch this space for another year or two before making a decision.

I've been looking at switching myself but investment in canon glass made me hesitate BUT there is a lot of test results from various people that shows almost as fast focus speed with canon metabones ( EF to E mkIV) with little to none of the issues the previous models had. The weight increase alone would save me when taking location lighting bag my gear adds up and a lot of stuff this time of year is me going to them rather than other way around. Check out that option and see a few of the tests as using canon glass still may be preferable for you.

Two potential issues with sony option for me is the battery life especially for long shoots although spare batteries fixes it. The second is the lossy raw compression which Kimeo Maki confirmed was the same and not changed.... yet. Hopefully they will change it. Not as bad as some make out but a few confirmed there is artifacts sometimes and the 14bit sensor isn't used to full potential since it only saves 8bit colour depth. For web workflow not so bad but most demand I have is for print and I push things in post too so the overhead would be nice.